run_techeu_rounds_search

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses useful traits like ordering ('newest first'), point cost ('1 point per returned record'), and the CC BY 4.0 license, but omits whether the operation is read-only, how pagination works, or any rate limits—details that would matter without annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it states the core purpose, returned fields, filter options, and cost in three efficient sentences. Every clause adds information, though the middle sentence listing filters is slightly dense and could be structured more cleanly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates the returned fields (company, amount in EUR, stage, investors, date, source) and the ordering ('newest first'). It also notes the credit cost. It lacks details on pagination behavior and error/empty-result handling, but given the fully documented input schema, it is substantially complete for an agent to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description summarizes the main filter dimensions but does not add syntactic or semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., date format, enum ranges, pagination via start_page and max_items are left to the schema).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb (Search) and resource (European startup funding rounds) and lists the returned fields, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like run_techeu_companies or run_techeu_exits_search. It also identifies the data source (Tech.eu Funding Explorer) and license, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage by stating it searches European startup funding rounds and lists filterable dimensions (country, stage, sector, minAmount, dates). However, it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not route the agent to or away from any of the many sibling tools that overlap in domain (e.g., run_techeu_companies, run_techeu_exits_search).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.